BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Definitions
(1) The employment target is an employment rate of 73%.
(2) A mid cap firm is defined as a company which has a market capitialazation over £1,000,000,000.
(3) A large cap firm is defined as company which has a market capitalization over £5,000,000,000.
(4) Inflation is the annual percentage change in the consumer price index.

2 Repeal
(1) Section 2 of V731 is hereby repealed.

3 Minimum wage changes
(1) If employment is higher than the employment target the minimum wage will rise two and a half times the rate of inflation for that year. The pay rise will occur on the 1st April each year.
(2) If there are two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth than the minimum wage shall be frozen for the following 12 months.
(3) The minimum wage shall not rise by more than 7.5%.

4 Mid cap and large cap firms
(1) If a mid cap firm or large cap firm has an annual revenue growth greater than 10% then they must give their lowest quartile of staff an annual 3% pay rise. The pay rise will occur on the 1st April each year.

5 Extent, short title and commencement
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the 1st January 2018.
(3) This Act may be referred to as The Minimum Wage Amendment Act 2017.

Currently on TSR the living wage is determined by the Living Wage Foundation. It is currently £9.75 per hour in London and £8.45 in the UK. You can visit the website here. The Conservative Party believe that provided the employment target is being met, raising the minimum wage 2.5x the rate of inflation is a much better way to raise wages for the poor and to lift people out of poverty. To start off with the rates will be determined by the Living Wage Foundation will be the starting point.

This Bill sets an employment target. If the employment target is being met this causes the minimum wage to rise. This means that the poorest in society will also benefit from high employment. The Conservative Party have picked 72% as an employment target because since 2000 the employment rate has steadily been above 72% and only fell below this rate when the 2008 recession occurred (we would expect this to be the same in the next recession). The current and past employment statistics are here.

If the economy goes into recession or there is a decline in employment then the minimum wage shall be frozen to ensure a minimum amount of lay offs occur.
We have also inserted a cap to ensure the minimum wage does not raise more than is sustainable.
Lastly, we are implementing our manifesto promise which states that if a mid cap/large cap company makes a big profit, the poorest workers should receive some of the benefits and not just those at the top.

This Bill benefits the poorest in society and allows them to benefit from employment figures and the Conservative Party sincerely believes no one should be left behind.
As Theresa May said on the steps of downing street,"we will work not for a privileged few, but for all of you".

Changes for second reading:
1) Inserted a cap.
2) Defined inflation as the percentage change in the consumer price index.
3) Made the minimum wage rise 2.5x the rate of inflation.
4) Froze the minimum wage in the event of recession.
5) Changed the definition of large cap and mid cap companies. (Using market capitalisation instead of payable tax)

(Original post by Rakas21)
We persuaded the people that matter and engaged you in debate for longer than it was worth (your not known for changing your opinion).

I sense that victory has been achieved even if you yourself still object.

If you call restating challenged premises in defence of the challenges as debate I am deeply concerned, but then you have been lying to the house about this bill and turned to socialism, even as the evidence points to your policies being highly damaging and unsustainable. Even if you can't convince me to support this awful bill it is still a poor show to be so incapable of even trying to defend your indefensible bill from scrutiny.

(Original post by RayApparently)
I shall vote in favour of this Tory economic policy. I trust the Opposition will bear that in mind when the Budget comes out.

It should come as no surprise that a job destroying socialist votes for job destroying socialist policies.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If you call restating challenged premises in defence of the challenges as debate I am deeply concerned, but then you have been lying to the house about this bill and turned to socialism, even as the evidence points to your policies being highly damaging and unsustainable. Even if you can't convince me to support this awful bill it is still a poor show to be so incapable of even trying to defend your indefensible bill from scrutiny.

It should come as no surprise that a job destroying socialist votes for job destroying socialist policies.

This seems like a sensible bill. Siphoning money from CEO pay to the working men and women of this country to ensure they have a decent standard of living, and are not left behind by inflation. More of this type of legislation is needed in this House, and I shall therefore be voting with RayApparently in favour of this bill.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If you call restating challenged premises in defence of the challenges as debate I am deeply concerned, but then you have been lying to the house about this bill and turned to socialism, even as the evidence points to your policies being highly damaging and unsustainable. Even if you can't convince me to support this awful bill it is still a poor show to be so incapable of even trying to defend your indefensible bill from scrutiny.

It should come as no surprise that a job destroying socialist votes for job destroying socialist policies.

Because our argument was largely correct.

In the first reading a number of valid critiques were made and the bill was amended accordingly. In the second reading the only piece of evidence presented was the Oregon study which the party viewed as too weak a retort due to the differences in youth unemployment from country to country and weak correlation between higher wages and higher youth unemployment. It was felt that this policy would not have a significantly negative effect in light of other policies in addition to this one.

(Original post by PearceVDC)
This seems like a sensible bill. Siphoning money from CEO pay to the working men and women of this country to ensure they have a decent standard of living, and are not left behind by inflation. More of this type of legislation is needed in this House, and I shall therefore be voting with RayApparently in favour of this bill.

It means no one is left behind when the economy is doing well and when companies are doing well.
You will be voting with conservative party policy

(Original post by fleky6910)
No , please do vote with me on my next piece of legislation also. I would love to have labour on board with my next bill, can I count on your support Ray?
#Cross partisan support

You obviously can't count on my support for a bill I haven't seen. If I approve, I approve.

(Original post by PearceVDC)
This seems like a sensible bill. Siphoning money from CEO pay to the working men and women of this country to ensure they have a decent standard of living, and are not left behind by inflation. More of this type of legislation is needed in this House, and I shall therefore be voting with RayApparently in favour of this bill.

It stops people being left behind by inflation, except for the million that lose their job and have to tackle increased inflation. And there is another big problem with your statement: even if the average FTSE 100 CEO cut their salary to zero it wouldn't even cover the increase for the first year. We truly do live in strange times when the house near unanimously agrees that it is better for somebody to be out of work than in a low paid job.

In the first reading a number of valid critiques were made and the bill was amended accordingly. In the second reading the only piece of evidence presented was the Oregon study which the party viewed as too weak a retort due to the differences in youth unemployment from country to country and weak correlation between higher wages and higher youth unemployment. It was felt that this policy would not have a significantly negative effect in light of other policies in addition to this one.

You being unconvinced does not mean that we are not.

Except you had no retort to the fact that "if the BoE does it's job it's fine" is a dreadful argument for the simple fact that even without the added inflationary pressure the BoE is incapable, the response was "well, uhh, everything will be fine if the BoE does it's job"

There was no response at all to the fact that you claim to want a market lead minimum but then propose what is anything but, I mean, yeah, it is driven by a market, just not a relevant one.

You had no response to the reality that it would not even take a decade for the minimum to catch up with a market led median wage, picking up millions of those that are fortunate enough not to be made redundant to keep down the wage bill on the minimum wage.

Nor any response that if we take the "the BoE will do it's job even though it has never managed it in the past" rather than the likely reality the same will happen in about 20 years

And if you really are rejecting the notion that significant increases in minimum wages has a negative effect on jobs then you really cannot call yourselves fiscally responsible and economically literate as a party.

'We examined the evidence for any effect of increases in the minimum wage on overall employment in the low-paying sectors, and found little evidence of employment loss except in those sectors, such as agriculture, textiles and food processing, which have been shedding labour for a period that started well before the introduction of the minimum wage.'

Giving people a wage on which they can survive on does not harm jobs, no matter how many times you say it.